7/7/15 Cook County Response To Second Amended Complaint (Melongo v. Spizzirri Et Al)

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:315
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANNABEL K. MELONGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASA ROBERT PODLASEK, et al
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 13 C 4924
Honorable
John Z. Lee
DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendants, Assistant States Attorney Robert Podlasek, Assistant States Attorney Julie
Gunnigle, and Assistant States Attorney Randy Roberts (incorrectly sued as Investigator Randy
Roberts), Investigator Kate OHara, Investigator James Dillon, Investigator Antonio Rubino,
Investigator Rich Lesiak, Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, and Cook County, by their attorney,
Anita Alvarez, States Attorney of Cook County, through Thomas E. Nowinski, Assistant States
Attorney, answer Plaintiffs Complaint and submit Affirmative Defenses as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Eight years ago, Plaintiff was arrested and charged with computer tampering
based on the unsupported, false allegations of her former employer, Defendant Carol Spizzirri,
ANSWER:
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

2.
Defendant Spizzirri was the Founder and President of a now defunct non-profit
organization known as Save a Life Foundation (SALF). Defendant Spizzirri held herself out as
a certified nurse who began SALF after she lost her daughter in a fatal hit and run car accident.
Defendant Spizzirri claimed that her daughters life would have been saved had she received
prompt emergency first aid at the scene of the accident. Based on this story, Defendant Spizzirri
created SALF with a purported mission of training emergency responders in life supporting first
aid.
ANSWER:

3.
In and around Spring, 2006, Defendant Spizzirri and SALF came under scrutiny
for its questionable financial activities. Spizzirri was exposed as a serial fabricator who lied
about her credentials (she is not a certified nurse) and the underlying facts of her daughters
death (her daughter crashed her own car while under the influence of alcohol and did not die as a
result of not receiving first aid emergency care). Critically, serious questions were raised
regarding SALFs use of nearly $9 million of state and federal funding.
ANSWER:

4.
Around that time, SALFs computer servers crashed, allegedly deleting hundreds
of financial records. Defendant Spizzirri falsely accused Plaintiff, her former employee, of
causing the deletion of SALFs financial records. On information and belief, Defendant Spizzirri
herself was responsible for SALFs computer crash and the resulting destruction of financial
records.
ANSWER:

5.
Defendant Spizzirri used her influence and power with Illinois politicians,
including Former Cook County States Attorney Dick Devine to embark on a witch hunt of
Plaintiff and frame Plaintiff for computer tampering.
ANSWER:

6.
Defendants Roberts, Martin, and French conducted no meaningful investigation,
of Spizzirris claims, ignored exculpatory evidence, and falsely charged and prosecuted Plaintiff
for the offense of computer tampering.
ANSWER:
7.
Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.
On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff was exonerated of all computer tampering charges.
ANSWER:

8.
On April 13, 2010, while Plaintiffs computer tampering charges pended in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Plaintiff was arrested again without probable cause for violating
the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Illinois
Supreme Court, People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852 (March 20, 2014). See also, ACLU of
Illinois v. Anita Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012).
ANSWER:

9.
Plaintiff was accused of secretly recording three separate telephone conversations
she had with Pamela Taylor, a supervisor in the Official Court Reporters office of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Criminal Division and posting those conversations to her website
www.illinoiscorruption.net
ANSWER:

10.
At that time, Plaintiffs website www.illinoiscorruption.net chronicled her efforts
to defend against criminal charges of computer tampering which she claimed were the product of
prosecutorial misconduct and political corruption. Plaintiffs stated purpose in maintaining her
website is to expose corruption in the Cook County criminal justice system.
ANSWER:

11.
Even though Defendants knew that Plaintiffs conduct of recording Taylor was
protected under a statutory exemption of the Illinois Eavesdropping statute, Defendants arrested,
detained, and later maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff for violating the Eavesdropping Statute.
Defendants did so to retaliate against Plaintiff for exercising her First Amendment rights to free
speech and freedom of press.
ANSWER:

12.
Plaintiffs charges for eavesdropping were dismissed in their entirety on July 26,
2012. However, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Cook County Jail for 20 months as a result of
the eavesdropping charges and spent an additional six (6) months on house arrest before the
dismissal of the charges.
ANSWER:

13.
After eight years, 20 months of incarceration, two trials, and an appeal, Plaintiff
has been vindicated of all wrongdoing.

ANSWER:

PARTIES
14.
Plaintiff Annabel Melongo is an adult resident citizen of Cook County, Illinois
ANSWER:

15.
On information and belief Defendant Robert Podlasek is an adult resident of Cook
County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Podlasek was a duly appointed Assistant
Cook County States Attorney and was acting under the color of state law. Podlasek is sued
individually and in his official capacity as a, Assistant Cook County States Attorney.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit that Robert Podlasek is an Assistant States Attorney
with the Cook County States Attorneys Office. Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of this paragraph, and thus
deny same.
16.
On information and belief Defendant Julie Gunnigle is an adult resident of Cook
County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Gunnigle was a duly appointed Assistant
Cook County States Attorney and was acting under the color of state law. Gunnigle is sued
individually and in her official capacity as an Assistant Cook County States Attorney.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit that Julie Gunnigle was an Assistant States Attorney
deny same.
17.
On information and belief Defendants Dillon, Rubino, and Lesiak (and unknown
Cook County sheriff officers) are adult residents of Cook County, Illinois. At all times material
hereto, Defendants Dillon, Rubino, and Lesiak were duly appointed members of the Cook
County Sheriffs Department and were acting by virtue of their position as a law enforcement
officer and under color of state law. They are sued in their individual and official capacities as
5
officer of the Cook County Sheriffs Department.

ANSWER:
Defendants admit that Dillon, Rubino, and Lesiak were all employees of
the Cook County Sheriffs Office. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of this paragraph, and thus deny same.
18.
On information and belief, Defendant Kyle French is an adult resident of
Anchorage, Alaska. At all times material hereto, Defendant French was a duly appointed
Assistant Illinois Attorney General and was acting under color of state law. French is sued
individually and in his official capacity as an Assistant Illinois Attorney General.
ANSWER:

19.
On information and belief, Dr. Matthew S. Markos is an adult resident of Cook
County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Dr. Markos was the director of Forensic Clinical
Services and was acting in a law enforcement capacity and under color of state law. Markos is
sued individually and in his official capacity.
ANSWER:

20.
Cook County Sheriff, Thomas Dart, was elected Sheriff of Cook County and was
responsible for the day to day operation of the Cook County Jail, including his employees. Dart
in his capacity as Cook County Sheriff existed as such under the laws of the State of Illinois and
the United States.
ANSWER:
Defendants that Thomas Dart is the elected Sheriff of Cook County.
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remainder of this paragraph, and thus deny same.
21.
Cook County is a municipality chartered by the State of Illinois and as such is a

6
political subdivision of the State of Illinois and among its other functions operates and maintains
a law enforcement agency known as the Cook County Sheriffs Department. Cook County is
under a duty to run its policing activities in a lawful manner so as to preserve the rights,
privileges, and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the constitutions and laws of the
United States and the State of Illinois.
ANSWER:
22.
On information and belief, Defendant Roberts is an adult resident of Cook
County, Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Roberts was a duly appointed member
of the Cook County States Attorneys office and was acting by virtue of his position as a law
enforcement officer and under color of state law. He is sued in his individual and official
capacity as an investigator in the office of the Cook County States Attorney.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit that Defendant Roberts was an Assistant States Attorney
deny same.
23.
Schiller Park Detective William Martin is an adult residence of Cook County,
Illinois. At all times material hereto, Defendant Martin was a duly appointed members of the
Schiller Park Police Department and was acting by virtue of his position as a law enforcement
officer and under color of state law. Defendant Martin is sued in his individual and official
capacity as officer of the Schiller Park Police Department.
ANSWER:

24.
The Village of Schiller Park is a municipality chartered by the State of Illinois
and as such is a political subdivision of the State of Illinois and among its other functions
operates and maintains a law enforcement agency known as the Schiller Park Police Department.
Schiller Park is under a duty to run its policing activities in a lawful manner so as to preserve the
rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed and secured to them by the constitutions and laws
of the United States and the State of Illinois.
ANSWER:
25.
Carol Spizzirri is an adult resident of San Marcos, California. She was the
Founder and President of the Save a Life Foundation (SALF) at all times relevant to the claims
herein.
ANSWER:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26.
Each and all acts of defendants, other than Defendant Spizzirri, were performed
under the color and pretense of the Constitutions, statutes and ordinances, regulations, customs,
and usages of the United States of America, the State of Illinois, the County of Cook, and under
the authority of their office as law enforcement officers for Cook County, Illinois.
ANSWER:

27.
The incidents which give rise to this cause of action occurred within this
jurisdiction and within two years of the filing of this Complaint.

ANSWER:
28.
Venue is proper in this venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, as all the defendants
are residents of this district and/or all the acts or omissions which give rise to this cause of action
occurred within this district.

ANSWER:
Defendants admit that venue is proper in the United States District
Court,Northern District of Illinois, but deny the allegations and events asserted by Plaintiff.
29.
Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1331,
28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiffs further invoke the pendent and
supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide claims arising under state law pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, each and every paragraph contained in this
complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein:
30.
On October 31, 2006, Plaintiff Melongo was charged with three (3) counts of
Computer Tampering under 720 ILCS 5/16-D-3(a)(3) . The indictment alleged that Plaintiff
remotely deleted files, mostly financial, that belonged to the Save-A-Life Foundation (SALF),
a now defunct non-profit organization with ties to numerous prominent Cook County and Illinois
politicians.
ANSWER:

31.
Founded in 1993 by Defendant Spizzirri, SALFs mission was to pass and help to
implement legislation nationwide that would require training in first aid and cardiopulmonary
resuscitation for police, firefighters, teachers, public safety workers, and emergency dispatchers.
SALF was a member organization of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and received
nearly $9 million in federal and state funding during its existence.
ANSWER:

32.
Defendant Spizzirri cultivated relationships with prominent politicians to advance
SALF and gain access to state and federal funding. By way of example, United States Secretary
of Education Arne Duncan was a prominent supporter of SALP when he was CEO of the
Chicago Public School. Dick Durbin, one of the highest ranking senators in the United States
Senate was one of SALFs strongest supporters. Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schankowski
sponsored a Congressional Budget earmark for SALF. Former U.S. Senator Republican Norm
Coleman sponsored a bill that would have awarded SALF millions if it had passed, and in 2006
the U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted the Community Response Systems Initiative Resolution,
committing their support to SALF.
ANSWER:

33.
However, since November of 2006, SALF has been the subject of dozens of
news/investigative reports that exposed SALFs founder Defendant Carol Spizzirri as a serial
fabricator and questioned the organizations claims, practices, and finances. To date, the greater
than $9 million received by SALF in state and federal funds remains unaccounted for.
Meanwhile, Defendant Spizzirri has relocated to California, avoiding further scrutiny of her
conduct while operating SALF.
ANSWER:

34.
The Illinois Attorney General, Charitable Trust Bureau represents that there is an
ongoing investigation into SALFs activities. However, to date, no civil or criminal action has
10
been brought against Defendant Sprizzirri.

ANSWER:

35.
In and around mid-2006, Defendant Spizzirri became aware that SALFs
financial activities were coming under scrutiny and that her financial activities as the President of
SALF might be examined.. In fact, in November, 2006, Reporter Chuck Goudie from ABC
News Chicago aired a series of investigative reports that discredited Defendant Spizzirri and her
organization.
ANSWER:

36.
In Spring, 2006, knowing SALFs financial record might come under review,
Defendant Spizzirri falsely accused Plaintiff of remotely deleting financial files from SALF
servers, claiming that Plaintiff was angry at Spizzirri for terminating her. Defendant Spizzirri
contacted the Illinois Attorney Generals office and reached out directly to her personal friend
Cook County States Attorney, Dick Devine, demanding that criminal charges be brought against
Plaintiff.
ANSWER:

37.
On information and belief, Defendant Spizzirri herself caused the destruction of
SALFs financial records and then fabricated a narrative accusing Plaintiff of tampering with the
SALF servers and causing the destruction of hundreds of financial records. Using her power,
influence, and relationships, Defendant Spizzirri embarked on a witch hunt to have Plaintiff
prosecuted for the offense of computer tampering all while diverting attention away from her
11
own misconduct and questionable financial dealings.

ANSWER:

38.
Specifically, Defendant Spizzirri falsely claimed that Plaintiff had unlawfully
accessed Spizzirris email account and forwarded emails from Spizzirris account to Plaintiffs
Yahoo email address. In truth, Spirzzirri herself forwarded the emails in an attempt to paint
Melongo as a bitter, computer hack whose goal was to retaliate against her former employee by
destroying financial records. Defendant Spizzirri also falsely accused Plaintiff of remotely
accessing SALFs servers, changing passwords, deleting financial files, and even stealing
SALFs credit card numbers for the purpose of making purchases.
ANSWER:

39.
With a directive from Dick Devine, Defendant Cook County Investigator Randy
Roberts along with Defendant Kyle French and Defendant Martin accepted Defendant Spizzirris
fabricated theory that Plaintiff had accessed SALFs servers and destroyed hundreds of financial
records with no meaningful investigation. Indeed, these Defendants ignored ample exculpatory
evidence showing that Plaintiff had no ability to access SALFs servers and could not have
committed the offense of computer tampering.
ANSWER:
40.
No factual basis existed to support a finding of probable cause that Plaintiff had
committed an act of computer tampering. Notwithstanding, Defendants Roberts, Martin and

French effectuated a search of Plaintiffs apartment, arrested Plaintiff, and initiated computer
tampering charges against her.
12
ANSWER:
41.
The Illinois Attorney General conducted an in-depth forensic analysis of
Plaintiffs computer which resulted in a report thousands and thousands of pages in length.
Testimony from the Forensic Expert revealed that no evidence derived from Plaintiffs computer
showed that Plaintiff had accessed Defendant Spizzirris emails or the SALF servers, let alone
caused those servers to crash or caused the destruction of hundreds of financial records.
ANSWER:

42.
Despite this stunning absence of evidence, Defendants Roberts, French, and
Martin continued to pursue criminal charges against Plaintiff. Defendant Ma

ANSWER:

43.
After a finding of no probable cause, the State indicted Plaintiff on three counts of
computer tampering on January 17, 2007, based on perjured testimony of .Defendant Martin.
The State superceded Plaintiffs original indictment with a new a indictment on May 28, 2008.
ANSWER:

44.
The report of proceedings reflect that Plaintiffs counsel appeared in court and
entered a plea of not guilty to the superceding indictment on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not
indicate on the record that she understood the charges and the court directed all communication
to her attorney - even referring to Plaintiff in the third person. However, at the conclusion of the
proceeding the court inquired about Plaintiffs bond:
The Court: There was some alleged deficiencies in the first indictment that
Counsel talked about, 07 nolle pros case, superseded by 08-10502.
13
Did she have a cash bond on that, or what kind of bond was she out
on?
The Defendant: I-bond.
The Court: I-bond.
ANSWER:

45.
The isolated I-Bond statement allegedly uttered by The Defendant is the only
indication that Plaintiff was present in court on June 18, 2008. Indeed, the docket sheet, the half
sheet, the judges notes, and the court call sheet all indicate that Plaintiff was not present in court
that day.
ANSWER:

46.
After reviewing the report of proceedings from the June 18, 2008 court date,
Plaintiff contacted the office of the Official Court Reporters and spoke with Official Court
Reporter Laurel Laudin who purportedly transcribed the proceedings. Plaintiff told Laudin that
she was not present at the June 18, 2008 proceedings and questioned her as to why the transcript
suggested she was. Ms. Laudin denied any inaccuracies in the transcript and eventually hung up
the phone.
ANSWER:

47.
Laudin later admitted that she destroyed the audio recording of the June 18,
2008 court proceedings which would have proved that Plaintiff was not present at the
arraignment.
ANSWER:

14
48.
On December 10, 2009, Pamela Taylor, the supervisor of the Official Court
Reporters office contacted Plaintiff and admonished her not to contact Ms. Laudin again.
Irritated, Plaintiff hung up the phone. Taylor called Plaintiff back a second time and left a
message on her voice mail instructing her to contact Taylor directly if she had any additional
questions about the June 18, 2008 transcript.
ANSWER:

49.
Later that day, Plaintiff complied with Taylors instructions and called her to
question and discuss the accuracy of the June 18, 2008 transcripts. Plaintiff recorded the
conversation. Plaintiff recorded additional conversations with Taylor on December 15 and
December 16, 2009.
ANSWER:

50.
Plaintiff recorded her conversations with Taylor in an effort to gather evidence
to prove that she was not actually present for the June 18, 2008 court date where she was
allegedly arraigned on a superceding computer tampering indictment. Furthermore, Plaintiff
intended to prove that the court reporter fabricated the report of proceedings when she indicated
that Defendant was present in open court and later destroyed the audio tape that would have
proved that fabrication.
ANSWER:

51.
In November, 2009, Plaintiff created a website known as
www.illinoiscorruption.net to chronicle her efforts at defending against the computer tampering
15
charges which she claimed were instituted without probable cause and as a result of political
pandering. On her website, Plaintiff states that she launched the site in an attempt to bring public
attention to the abuses of the criminal justice system in Illinois.
ANSWER:

52.
On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff posted her conversations with Taylor on her
website www.illinoiscorruption.net. Plaintiff noted that the recording of her conversations with
Taylor was protected by 720 ILCS 5/14-3(I), an exemption to the Illinois Eavesdropping statute
that permits the secretive recording of conversations to prove a claim.
ANSWER:

53.
Plaintiff also contacted the FBI to report her belief that the June 18, 2008
transcripts were falsified or doctored. FBI agent Dana DePooter testified under oath that she
received an email from Plaintiff complaining that the June 18, 2008 transcript had been tampered
with or doctored.
ANSWER:

54.
In and around January, 2010, Defendant French of the Illinois Attorney General
office began investigating Plaintiffs website and instructed a Senior Computer Evidence
Recovery Technician to capture the website for investigative purposes. On information and
belief, French also instructed the technician to monitor Plaintiffs website.
ANSWER:
16
55.
On January 8, 2010, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a motion to dismiss the
computer tampering charges on the grounds that the State suborned perjury from its witnesses
during the grand jury proceedings that resulted in her indictment.
ANSWER:

56.
On March 3, 2010, the date on which Plaintiff was scheduled to argue her
motion to dismiss the charges, Defendants French, Podlasek, and Gunnigle moved to have
Plaintiff psychologically examined (BCX) to determine her fitness to stand trial and to
represent herself despite the fact that no evidence suggested that Plaintiff suffered from any
mental health issues or that she did not understand the charges against her or could not assist in
her own defense.
ANSWER:

57.
Thereafter, Plaintiff posted on her website that Annabel has a big surprise in
store for the court in its attempt to push her out of the case by pretending that she is
psychologically unbalanced. The surprise will be known on April 14, 2010.
ANSWER:

58.
On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff submitted to a psychological exam to be conducted
by Defendant Markos. While Plaintiff was undergoing the evaluation, Defendants Podlasek and
Gunnigle contacted Defendant Dillon instructing Dillon to arrest Plaintiff because of the
inappropriate surprise message posted on her website. Plaintiff explained to Dr. Markos that
the surprise to which she referred was her hiring of a new attorney.
17
ANSWER:

59.
As a result of this direction, unknown Cook County Correctional officers
were dispatched to the Criminal Court facility where they interrupted Plaintiffs evaluation by
Defendant Markos and asked to speak with Defendant Markos privately.
ANSWER:

60. After leaving the room for a short period, Defendant Markos returned and began
questioning Plaintiff extensively about her website and her entries on the website, including the
surprise post. Markos attempted to elicit incriminating responses from Plaintiff during this so
called psychological exam about her website.
ANSWER:

61.
Immediately after the evaluation, Plaintiff stepped outside and was arrested by
unknown Cook County Sheriff officers and transferred to the Cook County Central Intelligence
Unit (CIU). Plaintiff was arrested for allegedly threatening a public official.
ANSWER:

62.
Plaintiff was interrogated by Defendants Dillon, Lesiak, and Rubino regarding
her website and Plaintiff asserted her right to counsel. Defendants Dillon, Lesiak, and Rubino
had no probable cause to detain Plaintiff for threatening a public official, but notwithstanding the
lack of probable cause, Defendants Dillon, Lesiak and Rubino arrested and detained Plaintiff.
They did so at the behest of Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, and French. Defendants Podlasek
18
and Gunnigle were actively investigating the case, including taking action to subpoeana the
websites records.
ANSWER:

63.
The State abandoned its threatening a public official charge, and on April 13,
2010, a complaint was filed against Plaintiff for violating the Illinois Eavesdropping statute when
she recorded her conversations with Pamela Taylor and posted those conversations on her
website. Although the alleged complainant on the Eavesdropping charges was Pamela Taylor,
the complaint itself does not bear her signature.
ANSWER:

64.
No probable existed to justify the eavesdropping charges where Plaintiff
recorded her conversations with Taylor for the purpose of establishing that the Court Reporters
office had falsified transcripts that erroneously suggested that Plaintiff had been arraigned on a
superceding indictment when, in fact, she was not even present in court when the alleged
arraignment took place. Indeed, Plaintiff herself reported the actions of the court reporter to the
F.B.I. and published the recordings on her website.
ANSWER:

65.
Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, French, Rubino, Lesiak, Dillon and OHara
singled out Plaintiff for prosecution under the eavesdropping statute despite recognizing that a
statutory exemption applied to Plaintiff. Defendants arrested Plaintiff and instituted charges
against her purely out of vindictiveness and retaliation.
19
ANSWER:
66.
Additionally, City Hall employees and Chicago Tribune reporters regularly
recorded conversations without the consent of all parties. Despite having knowledge of these
violations of the eavesdropping statute, neither the Illinois Attorney General, nor the Cook
County States Attorney, nor the Cook County Sheriffs office investigated, arrested, and
prosecuted these violators.
ANSWER:

67.
Despite an absence of probable cause to charge Plaintiff under the Illinois
Eavesdropping Statute, Defendant OHara, at the instruction of Defendants Podlasek and

Gunnigle ,obtained a search warrant to search Plaintiffs home.
ANSWER:

68.
On April 14, 2010, Plaintiff appeared in bond court and her bond was set at
$30,000D Bond. But on April 20, 2010, at the request of Defendants Podlasek and Gunnigle,
Judge Mary Brosnahan raised Plaintiffs bond to $500,000D bond.
ANSWER:

69.
On April 27, 2010, Plaintiff was indicted for three (3) counts of recording phone
conversations under 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1), and three (3) counts of publishing said conversation
on Plaintiffs website www.illinoiscorruption.net.
ANSWER:
20
70.
On May 5, 2010, Judge Brosnahan reduced Plaintiffs bond to $300,000D bond.
Unable to make bond, Plaintiff was incarcerated for more than 20 months in the Cook County
Jail. During her incarceration, Plaintiff exercised due diligence in attempting to learn the basis
for her arrest and determine the individuals responsible for that her wrongful arrest.
ANSWER:

71.
Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the eavesdropping charges on December 13,
2010 which was denied by the Judge Brosnahan.

ANSWER:
72.
Defendants admit.
On January 12, 2011, Plaintiffs trial on the eavesdropping charges commenced.
ANSWER:

73.
On January 14, 2011, Judge Brosnahan declared a mistrial because the jury was
unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the charges.

ANSWER:

74.
On April 11, 2011, Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans reassigned Plaintiffs
cases to the Honorable Judge Steven J. Goebel.

ANSWER:

75.
Thereafter, Plaintiff terminated her attorney and proceeded pro se. Plaintiff
remained incarcerated.
ANSWER:

21
76.
On September 14, 2011, Judge David K. Frankland of Sangamon County declared
the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute unconstitutional. People v. Allison, 2009-CF-50.

ANSWER:

77.
On September 20, 2011, ASA Podlasek moved before Judge Goebel to confiscate
Plaintiffs legal files related to the computer tampering and eavesdropping charges allegedly for
the purpose of redacting third-party social security numbers and credit card numbers. Judge
Goebel granted ASA Podlaseks motion and ordered Plaintiffs former attorney to hand over her
legal files to ASA Podlasek. ASA Podlasek demanded that Plaintiff relinquish both her case file
on the eavesdropping charges and the computer tampering charges.
ANSWER:

78.
ASA Podlasek removed various documents from Plaintiffs file, including police
reports and other memoranda critical to her defense.

ANSWER:
79.
On Plaintiffs motion, Judge Goebel released Plaintiff from the Cook County Jail
and the Cook County Sheriff placed her in the electronic monitoring program on October 20,
2011 - a week after the maximum sentence for the offense of eavesdropping had expired.
ANSWER:

80.
On November 10, 2011, Defendant Podlasek moved before Judge Goebel to
revoke Plaintiffs bond, alleging that she had made an unauthorized movement to her former
attorneys office and stole her own legal file. The Court allowed Plaintiff to stay at liberty and
22
to respond in writing to Defendants motion. Notwithstanding the Courts order, Defendant

Podlasek contacted the electronic monitoring program and instructed unknown Cook County
sheriff officers to arrest Plaintiff.
ANSWER:

81.
Plaintiff was imprisoned again until November 23, 2011 when Judge Goebel
reinstated Plaintiffs bond and recommitted her to the electronic monitoring program.
ANSWER:

82.
On November 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended motion to dismiss the
eavesdropping charges.
ANSWER:

83.
On March 2, 2012, Circuit Court Cook County Judge Stanley Sacks declared
the Illinois Eavesdropping statute unconstitutional. People v. Drew, 10 CR 00046.

ANSWER:

84.
On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff argued her motion to dismiss the eavesdropping
charges.
ANSWER:

85.
On May 8, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
declared the Illinois Eavesdropping statute unconstitutional in ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 582
(7th Cir. 2012).
23
ANSWER:

86.
On June 19, 2012, Judge Gobel granted Plaintiffs motion to dismiss and
on July 26, 2012, officially dismissed the eavesdropping charges.

ANSWER:

87.
On July 28, 2014 - eight years after Plaintiff was charged with three counts of
computer tampering - the State of Illinois dismissed two of the counts without explanation.
Specifically, the State dismissed all charges related to allegations that Plaintiff had accessed the
computer servers of SALF and caused the deletion or destruction of data.
ANSWER:

88.
However, the State proceeded to prosecute Plaintiff for unlawfully accessing
Defendant Spizzirris email account and for altering data by forwarding two emails to herself.
The parties picked a jury and the State put on its case in chief.
ANSWER:
89.
Defendants admit.
A computer forensic analyst who previously worked for the Illinois Attorney
General and conducted a complete forensic analysis of Plaintiffs computer testified that no
forensic evidence showed that Plaintiff had accessed Spizzirris email or servers.
ANSWER:

90.
At the close of the States case, the defense moved for a directed finding and
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Joyce entered a directed finding of not guilty.
24
ANSWER:
91.
Defendants admit.
After eight years since charges were originally brought, two of which were spent
ANSWER:

COUNT I
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS PODLASEK,
GUNNIGLE, OHARA, DILLON, RUBINO, LESIAK, FRENCH, MARKOS, UNKNOWN
CO OK COUNTY SHERIFF POLICE OFFICERS, COOK COUNTY INVESTIGATOR
ROBERTS, SCHILLER PARK POLICE OFFICER MARTIN
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in their entirety, each and every paragraph of this
Complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
92.
Defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, OHara, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French,
Markos, Roberts, Martin, and unknown Cook County Sheriff Police officers committed the
above described actions and/or omissions under the color of law and by virtue of their authority
as law enforcement officers, and substantially deprived Plaintiff of her clearly established rights,
privileges, and immunities, guaranteed to her by the United States Constitution and in violation
of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and deprived Plaintiff of her rights guaranteed to her under the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, including but not limited
to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
freedom from unlawful search and seizure;

freedom from unlawful arrest and seizure of her person;
freedom from deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law;
freedom from summary punishment;
freedom from arbitrary government activity which shocks the conscious of a
civilized society.
freedom from the arbitrary denial of free speech and press under the First
Amendment
freedom from retaliatory arrest
freedom from irrational differential treatment in violation of the equal protection
clause.
25
ANSWER:
93.
Defendants deny this paragraph and all of its subparts.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants Podlasek,
Gunnigle, OHara, Dillon, Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos, Roberts, Martin, and unknown Cook
County Sheriffs, Plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated and Plaintiff was injured and
sustained substantial injuries.
ANSWER:
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in their
favor and against Plaintiff, that the action be dismissed with prejudice, and that costs be assessed
against Plaintiff.
COUNT II
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST COOK COUNTY
Count II was dismissed with prejudice by order of Court on June 9, 2015
COUNT III
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST VILLAGE OF SCHILLER
PARK
Count III was dismissed with prejudice by order of Court on June 9, 2015
COUNT IV
STATE LAW TORTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS PODLASEK, GUNNIGLE, OHARA,
DILLON, RUBINO, LESIAK, FRENCH, MARKOS, ROBERTS, MARTIN, UNKNOWN
COOK COUNTY SHERIFF POLICE OFFICERS AND CAROL SPIZZIRRI
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in its entirety, each and every paragraph of this Complaint
and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein
104.
The acts, omissions and conduct of defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, French,
OHara, Dillon, Lesiak, Rubino, Markos, Roberts, Martin, Spizzirri, and unknown Cook County
Sheriff Police officers constitute false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
conspiracy, slander, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of
26
emotional distress.
ANSWER:
The slander and fraud claims in Count IV were dismissed by order of Court
on June 9, 2015. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.

105.
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and omissions of
defendants, Plaintiff has been injured and damaged.

ANSWER:

106.
Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart, pursuant to the principle of respondiat
superior, is responsible for the wrongful conduct of its deputies as alleged above.
ANSWER:

against Plaintiff.
COUNT V
AGAINST COOK COUNTY FOR INDEMNIFICATION
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate, in its entirety, each and every paragraph of this Complaint
and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
107.
Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9/-102, 55 ILCS 5/4-6003, and 55 ILCS 5/5-1106,
COOK COUNTY is empowered and directed to pay any judgment for compensatory damages
(and any associated attorneys fees and costs) for which an independently elected Cook County
officer, such as the Cook County Sheriff and its deputies, including Defendants Rubino, Lesiak,
and Dillon, acting within the scope of his employment is found liable.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the existence of 745 ILCS 10/9-102, but deny any
27
liability to Plaintiff pursuant to that statute.

108.
The acts and/or omissions of Defendants Rubino, Lesiak, and Dillon were
committed in the scope of their employment.

ANSWER:

109.
In the event, that a judgment for compensatory damages is entered against
Defendants Rubino, Lesiak, and Dillon, COOK COUNTY must pay the judgment as well as the
associated attorneys fees and costs.
ANSWER:
Defendants admit the existence of 745 ILCS 10/9-102, but deny any
liability to Plaintiff pursuant to that statute.

against Plaintiff.
COUNT VI
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS PODLASEK, GUNNIGLE, OHARA,
DILLON, RUBINO, LESIAK, FRENCH, MARKOS, UNKNOWN COOK COUNTY
SHERIFF POLICE OFFICERS, ROBERTS, MARTIN, AND SPIZZIRRI
Plaintiffs hereby incorporate, in its entirety, each and every paragraph of this Complaint
and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
110.
The actions and/or omissions of defendants Podlasek, Gunnigle, OHara, Dillon,
Rubino, Lesiak, French, Markos, Roberts, Martin, Spizzirri, and unknown Cook County Sheriff
Police officers were unlawful, conscience shocking, and unconstitutional, and performed
maliciously, recklessly, fraudulently, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, in bad faith, and in such
a manner to entitle the Plaintiff to a substantial award of punitive damages against defendants.
ANSWER:
28
against Plaintiff.
DAMAGES
Plaintiff hereby incorporates, in its entirety, each and every paragraph contained in this
Complaint and by reference makes said paragraphs a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
111.
As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned actions and omissions of
the defendants, Plaintiffs was injured and damaged. The damages for which Plaintiff seeks
compensation from the defendants, both jointly and severally, include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
emotional pain and suffering of a past, present, and future nature;

loss of enjoyment of life of a past, present, and future nature;
fright, fear, aggravation, humiliation, anxiety, and emotional distress of a
past, present, and future nature as a result of the injuries sustained as a
result of the illegal actions of defendants.
loss of earning capacity;
attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
punitive damages against applicable defendants;
pre-and post-judgment interest;
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief holding that the policies,
practices or customs of defendants, complained of herein are illegal and
unconstitutional;
preclusion of defendants OHara, Dillon, Lesiak, and Rubino from seving
as police officers; and
all such relief, both general and specific, to which Plaintiff may be entitled
to under the premises.
ANSWER:
Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph and each of its subparts.
against Plaintiff.
29
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity
At all relevant times, Robert Podlasek, Julie Gunnigle, and Randy Roberts were Assistant
States Attorneys working for the Cook County States Attorneys Office, and in this capacity,
they performed acts toward initiating a prosecution and presenting the States case. Because the
conduct complained of on the part of these defendants arises out of the initiation and prosecution
of criminal charges, Plaintiffs claims are barred on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Qualified Immunity
At all relevant times, Defendants were protected by qualified immunity as their actions
were at all times proper in light of clearly established law.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Sovereign Immunity
Plaintiffs claims against Robert Podlasek, Julie Gunnigle, and Randy Roberts are really
claims against a State official based upon their actions as Assistant States Attorneys, functions
that fall within the scope of their employment, and authority as Assistant States Attorneys.
Plaintiffs claims against Robert Podlasek, Julie Gunnigle, and Randy Roberts relate to
the initiation of charges against and the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff and other criminally
charged co-defendants. The States Attorney is the constitutional officer vested with exclusive
discretion in the initiation and management of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution of
Plaintiffs case, and the cases of the other charged co-defendants, is therefore, well within the
scope of the States Attorneys authority. The Illinois Court of Claims has sole and exclusive
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims against Robert Podlasek, Julie Gunnigle, and Randy
Roberts.
30
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Statute of Limitations Federal Claims
To the extent that any of Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 1983 accrued more than two
years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs Complaint, these claims are time barred.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Failure to Mitigate Damages
Plaintiff has failed to mitigate the damages he claims to have sustained.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Statute of Limitations State Law Claims
To the extent that any of Plaintiffs claims pursuant to Illinois State law accrued more
than one year prior to the filing of Plaintiffs Complaint, these claims are time barred pursuant to
745 ILCS 10/8-101(a).
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
745 ILCS 10/2-201
Defendants are immune pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-201 because the decision to arrest,
based upon the information and circumstances known to them at the time, was a discretionary
decision.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

745 ILCS 10/2-202
Defendants acts or omissions at issue were taken by a public employees in the execution
or enforcement of a law and did not constitute willful or wanton conduct. Accordingly,
Defendants are immune from suit pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-202.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
745 ILCS 10/2-204
Defendnats are immune from suit pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-204 for any injury caused
by the act or omission of another person.
31
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

745 ILCS 10/2-208
Defendants are immune pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-201 for injury allegedly caused by the
institution or prosecution any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his
employment, unless he acted maliciously and without probable cause.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Cook County is immune from the imposition of punitive damages under both state and
federal law. Punitive damages cannot be imposed against a municipality in a 1983 action. City
of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981). Cook County cannot be required to
indemnify an employee for punitive damages, nor may it pay a judgment for punitive damages
on behalf of an employee. 745 ILCS 10/2-102.
TWELVTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims in the complaint are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent any injuries or damages claimed by Plaintiff were proximately caused, in
whole or in part, by the negligent, willful, wanton and/or other wrongful conduct on the part of
the Plaintiff, any verdict or judgment obtained by Plaintiff must be reduced by application of the
principles of comparative fault, by an amount commensurate with the degree of fault attributed
to Plaintiff by the jury in this cause.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches as Plaintiff failed to file her
complaint in a reasonable time and therefore Defendants have been prejudiced.
32
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendants are immune from punitive damages pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-102.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking liability on behalf of Thomas Dart under a theory of
respondeat superior, that theory is only applicable to any state law claims. Additionally, Thomas
Dart is not liable in his individual capacity under a theory of respondeat superior.
against Plaintiff.
JURY DEMAND
Defendants hereby demand a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
38(b) on all issues so triable.
Respectfully Submitted,
ANITA ALVAREZ
States Attorney of Cook County
By:
/s/ Thomas E. Nowinski

Thomas E. Nowinski
Assistant States Attorney
500 Richard J. Daley Center
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 603-4327
33

7/7/15 Cook County Response To Second Amended Complaint (Melongo v. Spizzirri Et Al)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

7/7/15 Cook County Response To Second Amended Complaint (Melongo v. Spizzirri Et Al)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:315

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:316

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:317

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Defendants Roberts, Martin, and French conducted no meaningful investigation,

Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Plaintiff was accused of secretly recording three separate telephone conversations

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

At that time, Plaintiffs website www.illinoiscorruption.net chronicled her efforts

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:318

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

has been vindicated of all wrongdoing.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:319

Plaintiff Annabel Melongo is an adult resident citizen of Cook County, Illinois

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

On information and belief Defendant Robert Podlasek is an adult resident of Cook

Defendants admit that Robert Podlasek is an Assistant States Attorney

On information and belief Defendant Julie Gunnigle is an adult resident of Cook

Defendants admit that Julie Gunnigle was an Assistant States Attorney

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:320

officer of the Cook County Sheriffs Department.

On information and belief, Defendant Kyle French is an adult resident of

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

On information and belief, Dr. Matthew S. Markos is an adult resident of Cook

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

Defendants that Thomas Dart is the elected Sheriff of Cook County.

Cook County is a municipality chartered by the State of Illinois and as such is a

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:321

Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.

On information and belief, Defendant Roberts is an adult resident of Cook

Defendants admit that Defendant Roberts was an Assistant States Attorney

Schiller Park Detective William Martin is an adult residence of Cook County,

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of this paragraph, and thus deny same.

The Village of Schiller Park is a municipality chartered by the State of Illinois

Case: 1:13-cv-04924 Document #: 83 Filed: 07/07/15 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:322

Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph.